Washington Title Hopes Probably Shouldn’t Rest on John Wall and Bradley Beal

The following is another post from Alexander “Lexie” Barza. Lexie lives in Boston where he does marketing forThe Cambridge Institute of International Education. He spends his free time playing with basketballs, data, and words (in no particular order). He appreciates the WP metric because it is based on data, not hunches or what “looks” right. Oh, and also because it’s the only metric that accurately reflects just how overrated Antoine Walker was. For those who like Twitter (and isn’t that everyone?), Lexie can be followed at @docoolstuff.

I’d like to tell you a story. It’s a story of unrealistic expectations, exaggerated promise and misallocation of credit. This tale’s two protagonists are given undue recognition for their teams success, while other significant contributors are praised more for their intangible “experience” and “toughness” than the real, honest-to-God, quantifiable production they generate. No I’m not talking about George Karl and most teams he’s ever coached – I’m talking about John Wall, Big Panda and the Washington Wizards!

If you’ve watched any Wizards games during this year’s playoffs, you’ve likely heard about Washington’s backcourt tandem of John Wall and Bradley Beal. If one were to take the pundits at their word, one would believe that Wall and Beal are the foundation of both the current Wizards and a future contender. However, even a shallow dive into the data shows this is exaggerated: not only are Wall and Beal not the foundation for this current team’s success – they likely aren’t the foundation for a future champion, either.

In order to understand why these two players aren’t responsible for the current team’s success or future championship material, let’s begin by investigating who is most responsible for the 2014 Wizard’s wins. Next, we’ll evaluate whether this young, highly touted backcourt is really promising enough to pilot a future championship contender.

The 2014 Wizard

88% of the 2014 Wizards 47 Wins Produced can be attributed to 5 players, each of whom performed at an above-average rate. Notably, John Wall was only the third most productive of these five principle contributors and the least productive on a per-minute basis. Moreover, none of these 5 players is named either “Bradley” and/or “Beal”

For Beal, who performed at a below average level, one has to assume he’s being credited more for his scoring totals, high draft status and youth than for actually helping the Wizards win games.

As for Wall, his proponents will argue that box score statistics don’t accurately account for all the value he provides, as his manic drives to the rim are said to compromise the defense, providing his teammates the clean looks the enable them to thrive. While this assertion is likely true to some extent (as it likely holds true for most team’s primary ballhandler(s)), it conveniently overlooks three key facts:

Somebody has to actually make the shot, and players who can do that at a high rate (Ariza, Gortat, Webster) are extremely valuable.

If Wall is to be given credit for providing his sharp-shooting teammates open looks, it’s only fair to likewise give credit to those highly-efficient shooters for helping to boost Wall’s assist numbers.

The Wizard’s two highest win producers, Ariza and Gortat, achieved similar rates of productivity earlier in their careers before they had Wall’s help. For instance, Ariza generated WP48’s of .215 and .208 in 2007 and 2009 respectively (admittedly in fewer minutes), nearly matching his 2014 career high. As for the Polish Hammer, it’s hard to ascribe his success to his playing with Wall given that, before he ever had Wall’s help Gortat had produced numerous seasons (2009-2012) that match or better his 2014 productivity.

All in all, it’s pretty clear that Wall and Beal are receiving exaggerated credit because pundits would rather lionize flashy, high-scoring, highly-drafted guards like Beal and Wall than boring 3-and-D guys (Ariza, Webster) or solid big men who shoot high percentages (Gortat, Booker).

The Wizards of the Future

So now that we’ve seen that the 2014 Wizards success was disproportionately credited to its backcourt, let’s turn to the future: is this backcourt the foundational piece that will lead the Wizards to their first title since the Bullets won all the way back in ’78? In a word: no.

Wall is a good player. His high turnover rate is partially excused by his usage rate and high assist numbers. He also showed off an average 3-point shot this year, a skill that, when combined with his strong rebounding and steals, could elevate him to genuine star status over the next couple seasons. And yet, the fact that his turnover rate and shot-selection still leave much to be desired in his 4th year is an ominous sign for a player who should be “putting it all together” by this point.

Moreover, because his game relies so heavily on athleticism, which is the most notoriously fleeting and ephemeral of NBA skill sets, I expect Wall to age about as gracefully as a banana. Based on his career thus far, I would bet on Wall peaking over the next 3-4 years then suffering a precipitous dropoff far before I would ever predict his reaching “best player on a contender” status.

Beal still has a lot of time to improve, but his shot chart is currently too imbalanced for him to profile as a star. Although Beal’s a prolific 3-point shooter, he simply misses too many 2’s to generate the sort of scoring efficiency that is necessary for a shooting guard who offers too little else to be worthy of the “star” label. If Beal changes his shot distribution to prioritize 3-pointers and uses the drive/pull-up as a counter, he may become a very good, efficient scorer, but even then he’ll likely never be the second star on a championship team.

All in all, the Wizards should be proud of their 2014 success. But with key organizational decisions looming (Gortat, Ariza and Booker are all free agents and Beal is approaching his contract extension) the team must objectively evaluate its current assets to determine the best course of action for procuring that elusive second championship. If fans in the DC area are fortunate, Ernie Grunfeld and the Wizards brass will avoid getting caught up in the hype, recognize that Wall and Beal are more likely to be complementary pieces than the backbone of a championship contender in DC, and react accordingly. Unfortunately, given the Wizards history of myopic trades and contract extensions, fans in DC would be wise to not hold their collective breath.

6 Responses to "Washington Title Hopes Probably Shouldn’t Rest on John Wall and Bradley Beal"

I disagree with the Lexie on this one. Wall & Beal are the cornerstones of the Wizard franchise. Keep in mind that both players are only in their 2nd & 4th years, given them time to gel together. Once they figure things out, I can honestly see them competing for Eastern Conference Championship in the not too distant future. Obviously, they will need other pieces, but having Ariza, Webster, Ne Ne, and Gortat at 3-5 slots are not bad for starters.

1)Ariza is Highly Dependent on Having Teammates generate open looks for him. It isn’t a coincidence his WS/48 Dropped like a Rock after he left a Great Lakers team in 2008-2009.

2)The number of Ariza Corner 3s assisted by Wall is staggering. Corner 3s are more created by Penetration than anything. The amount of players in the league who can shoot Open Corner 3s >>>>>>> Players who can regularly generate open Corner 3s for teammates. Wall deserves the vast majority of the credit for these.

3)Using the fact that he produced a lot when also matched up with another player (Kobe) who can significantly compromise a defense is hardly an argument against Wall. If anything shows how reliant Ariza is on teammates to generate the looks for him.

———————————————————————

In regards to Wall and Beal not being the Foundational Piece that will lead the Wizards to a Title….DUH

I do not know of anyone trying to even remotely suggest otherwise. Saying Ariza and Beal will not be the driving force to a Title is roughly as controversial as as if I wrote an article telling Nuggets fans not to expect Lawson + Farheid to be the cornerstone pieces of a Champion.

Nobody sees the Wizards as a Future Title Contender. They are almost by definition set to be a treadmill team. There is a high probability of neither Wall nor Beal ever even making an All NBA team.

BryanS, I think you mised the point. It’s not that they need time to gel, it’s that Beal isn’t very good and Wall isn’t good enough to justify his salary, let alone be a centerpiece. Beal can shoot 3’s, yes, but that’s all he does well.

Jason, if you’ve followed this site at all you should be aware that shot creation is considered a myth around here. Like the article says, if wall gets credit for setting up ariza, ariza fets credit for being in the right spot and being able to hit a high percentage of his shots. What you’ve done is shift all of that credit to Wall. It’s symbiotic. If Wall had Iman Shumpert or Avery Bradley out there instead of Ariza, he’d look like a piss poor PG.

*Basically, Wall is Uniquely special among all NBA players at Creating Corner 3 for teammates. Ariza is a good corner 3 shooter, although many players in the NBA shoot 45%+ from Corner 3s. Finding player’s that can do that is far, far easier than finding the player’s with the ability to generate them (since corner 3s are almost always assisted on).

Thanks very much for the constructive (if somewhat abrasive?) feedback! A few points I’d like to address:

1. I think you’re undervaluing the value of having good shot selection re: Ariza. This is precisely what separates Ariza from Beal. Nobody is forcing Beal to take so many bad 2’s. Sure, he’s incentivized to do so (Yay points!) but that doesn’t make it a productive action. Ariza should be rewarded for taking shots he can make and Beal should be debited for taking shots he can’t make. Simple as that.

2. If you want to argue that corner 3-point ATTEMPTS are more attributable to penetration (Wall) than the 3-point shooter (Ariza), I would agree. 3 point MAKES, on the other hand, are a very different metric and are mostly dependent on the shooter (Ariza), not the passer (Wall).

3. I disagree with your assertion that nobody views Wall and Beal as core pieces on a contender.

In addition to some fans who happen to have great taste in reading material (cheers to Bryan S above!), commentators raved about this young duo throughout their playoff run. Moreover, a simple Google search of “Wall Beal Cornerstone” yields quite a few articles in which personnel execs, writers, etc… label those two players the franchises cornerstones: http://bit.ly/1m8P8gB. If you’re arguing that all of these writers are wrong or naive, I would likely agree with you, but to argue that no one is making such a claim in the first place strikes me as slightly disingenuous.

Moreover, assuming the Wizards’ goal is to win a championship, doesn’t the fact that they appear to be building around those two players indicate that they (the Wizards) believe the two players can lead the team to a championship?

4. For the record, Lawson + Faried are wayyy better than Wall + Beal. Honestly, it’s not even a close comparison.

5. I’m not sure if I’m missing something, but your argument that “there is a high probability of neither Wall nor Beal ever even making an All NBA team” somehow proves that others do not mistakenly view them as cornerstones makes no sense to me.